HOW POWELL STORY PLAYED: On 20 out of 140 front pages

[Newsjock]

To see how the nation's newspapers played the Associated Press story detailing Colin Powell's unproven allegations for war, I checked the 140 U.S. front pages presented today at the Newseum.

The result:
20 papers had at least some mention of the story on their front page.
120 papers did not.

It's fascinating to see how the headline writers in different places decided to deal with the issue.

Arizona Daily Star, Tucson -- below fold, "A closer look at 'thick file' on Iraq"
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock -- Two-line refer above fold
Cincinnati Enquirer -- above fold, in right column, "The case for war in Iraq hollow"
Corpus Christi Caller-Times -- below fold, "Powell's Iraq case examined"
Daytona Beach News Journal -- lead headline above fold, "U.S. case for war remains hollow," with special presentation
Des Moines Sunday Register -- top of page, secondary story, "Powell's 'thick file' against Iraq looks rather thin 6 months later"
Honolulu Advertiser -- below fold, "Powell's case for war revisited"
Idaho Statesman, Boise -- above fold, on side, "Powell's case for war -- then... and now"
Las Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas Sun -- above fold, with art, "Powell's eloquence turns to emptiness / 'Smoking guns' alleged in compelling speech of Feb. 5 at U.N. now firing blanks in Iraq"
Lexington Herald Leader -- below fold, "Powell's indictment of Iraq looking thin / Secretary poured out allegations at U.N."
News & Record, Greensboro NC -- strip across top, "Powell's Iraq case looking thin"
News-Press, Fort Myers FL -- lead headline, on side, "Powell's 'thick file' thins out / Supporting evidence failing to materialize"
Olympian, Olympia WA -- across top of page, all caps, "POWELL'S U.N. SPEECH, 6 MONTHS LATER / Many claims used to justify war in Iraq don't pass test of time"
Philadephia Inquirer -- lead headline, on side, "Powell's battle cry fails test of time / Six months after his case swung opinion toward attacking Iraq, his intelligence file looks thin"
Plain Dealer, Cleveland -- below fold, "Indictment of Iraq comes under fire / Months later, the accuracy of Powell's condemning speech is questioned"
Sacramento Bee -- below fold, "Powell's key Iraq speech: Some claims look rickety"
Savannah (GA) Morning News -- below fold, "Powell's U.N. address picked apart / He still stands by his 'thick intelligence file,' but is the evidence it contains starting to look thin?"
St. Petersburg Times -- below fold, "A look back at Powell's case on Iraq / Six months ago, the most detailed U.S. case for invading Iraq was laid out. How does it stand up now?"
Times Record News, Wichita Falls TX -- above fold, "War in Iraq: A look back at U.S. case"
Times Union, Albany NY -- below fold, "A hard look back at the case for war / 6 months ago, Powell laid out arguments for conflict in Iraq; now, a thick file appears thin"

The Washington Post's story detailing the specific lies about Iraq's nuclear program appeared on only one other front page in this sample:
St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) -- Below fold, "Facts failed to derail war push / U.S. forged ahead as evidence eroded"

Newspapers that possibly ran this story inside the paper are not included, since the Newseum displays only front pages.

Singled out for whoredom among this sample of newspapers is the Daily Herald of suburban Chicago. Their lead headline is "Interior minister caught / U.S. captures another of Iraq's most wanted." That would be the guy who we also "caught" last month.

[kstewart33]

1. Great work!

I appreciate your work to put this together. My husband and I were wondering over lunch just how much attention this story received nationally, and you answered the question. Thanks.

[wryter2000]

2. Yes, thanks!

This is great news. Glad so many papers in such a diversity of places are picking up on it.

[Newsjock]

3. Actually, I was disappointed

Only 1 out of 7 papers felt this exposé was front-page news. I suppose that's progress from the environment of a few months ago, but it still stings.

The bulk of papers that didn't mention Powell instead went with some variation of "terror groups operating inside Iraq -- more attacks likely." Just another form of the nonstop fearmongering that's taken over this country.

At work last night, we actually predicted how many papers would run Powell on the front page. We assumed a sample of 200 papers (not the 140 that actually made it). One person said Powell would be on 106 papers. Another said 79. I said 47, and everyone told me I was being too pessimistic.

I win again. But we all lose.

[Nailzberg]

4. Let the Daily Herald print what they want.

Nobody reads that POS anyway.

[CarlBallard]

5. The Trib

The Tacoma News Tribune had it, and they have a bigger circulation thn the Olympian. I haven't checked the Times/PI yet, but we'll see.

[Newsjock]

6. Wow, their headline

"Powell's case for war a shambles"

If that's on their front page, I love them.

[salin]

7. Great work....

I checked out our local paper and then the Indianapolis paper. No mention anywhere.

However - this is still a huge story. It won't go away. And don't papers often copycat one another? Isn't there a chance that a variation of the story might get play on Monday, or Tuesday? Especially if any of the network news shows picks it up?

We can always hope.

Thank you for giving us a glimpse at how this all plays out.

[Starpass]

8. I can't figure out if this is suppose to be good news, bad news???

Wherever it was in the "papers" isn't what is bothering me right now. It's that it sounds that Powell who is on the way out the door anyway is now going to be the fall guy for the filthy, lying, scum in the White House. And, sad to say, his supporters are the type who will love to see "the black guy" take the fall. It's all just too perfect. Powell was at least fighting these bastards behind the scenes. I don't like the smell of it.

[pansypoo53219]

9. what story?

right leaning Milwaukee urinal did not have it. OF COURSE THE PRE-SEASON PACKER GAME WAS MORE IMPORTANT.

[Kurovski]

10. the Seattle Times

had it on page a4. Headline: "U.S. justification for war: How it stacks up now."

How does it stack up? Like a needle in that stack if it happens to be made of hay.

The case for war is disassembled point by point. How will the upcoming
"CIA September surprise" regarding weapons in Iraq stand up given this lack of prior evidence?

[AlinPA]

11. Big layout in the Pitt. Post-Gazette, but not front page.

Bottom of same page had the story about the WH working hard to get the nuclear lie into the state of the union.

[Kurovski]

12. Kick

*****()******

[Vadem]

13. Washington Post had 1/2 headlines, above the fold, and

continuing on pages 9-11. Huge. Haven't seen a story like this one from the Post since "Clinton Impeached".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html

[gristy]

14. missed one - front page above the fold!

This headline covered the entire width of the Sunday Schenectady (NY) Gazette:

Powell's case for war still unproven / Analysis of U.N. speech finds no smoking guns in Iraq.

Great article.